When your zoning code is a dinosaur...

[PonderInc]

How do you know when your current zoning codes and comp plan are out of date?

"It's interesting when 1,200 people come to workshops, and lay out a vision that is 80% illegal." (Under the current zoning codes.)
- John Fregonese, Dec 8, 2008

He was talking about how Tulsans overwhelmingly supported new (old) development concepts like mixed-use (lofts above retail), greater density, more traditional "main street" scenarios, more walkable neighborhoods, etc.

Very few people were placing stickers for "large-lot residential" or big-box "commercial centers" anywhere on the map.  The main street and village stickers were popping up everywhere, as people seem to crave a return to more livable development strategies.

While our zoning code is currently "one-size fits all" demanding suburban sprawl and auto-dependency...people are looking for a variety of new choices that are more traditional and sustainable for the long run.

Fortunately, I believe that the PLANiTULSA process will include a review of existing zoning codes, along with recommendations for changes.  At that point, it will be up to us to support those changes...and make it legal for Tulsans' vision of the future to come true.

[cannon_fodder]

Was the quote a statement about the antiquity of our zoning codes or the ignorance of our citizens?

In either event, thanks for the update.

[pmcalk]

One thing I wonder about is what people might have been thinking when they applied the chips.  For example, when I participated, I wanted to see lots of mixed-use, higher density areas.  But, in truth, for the time being anyway I have no intention of leaving my single family home.  So, how many of those 1200 truly want to live in a mixed use subdivision?  How many are wanting to give up their single family home, yard, etc...?  I have confidence that Fregonese will take into account market factors when planning the comp plan.  But it would have been interesting to ask each participant what sort of living arrangement they preferred, not just what they would like to see for Tulsa.

[Red Arrow]

I must admit I would "vote" for denser development and all the walkable things folks seem to want on this forum, just as long as it's somewhere else. (NIMBY syndrome) It would give a place for people to live that currently flock to developments that forever devastate a quarter section of land or more with 4 or 5 houses per acre.  It would lead to less traffic for me and less street maintenance for the city. And so on.  Tulsa and Bixby would be more like the nodes of population that Artist talks about with the Urban Village idea. That would make it easier to connect Bixby and Tulsa with light rail since the dense areas would be defined.

I am happy to have to drive a mile or so (more when we moved here in 1971) to the grocery store as long as I don't need to fight traffic caused by people who would rather live like sardines.  If Tulsa had done a better job of promoting and providing both upscale and affordable crowded living options, I could still be driving down an empty 2 lane Memorial Drive to get home.  Bixby would still be about 5,000 population and Tulsa could suck in all that infrastructure income from the taxes that would be collected in Tulsa rather than Bixby, BA, Owasso, SS, Glenpool, etc.  You could still have the big box centers at the edge of the city like at 71st St (at 75 and 169) to lure in all the suburban troglodytes and their money. Those spots would be out of your back yard but still fill the city's back pocket. Infrastructure from center city to these awful places could be minimal to discourage suburbanites from trespassing on any more city provided streets than necessary.  Sophisticated downtowners wouldn't want or need to go there except to collect tax revenue.

[]

[TURobY]

No one is arguing that suburban-style living options shouldn't be available. People obviously want the option and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, the fact that tax dollars are being spent to encourage further sprawl, especially given the current financial woes facing cities, is not excusable without further investment in higher density developments where more tax dollars can be generated per square mile. I am not advocating a completely urban landscape across the entire City of Tulsa, but instead of perpetuating a failing system of sprawl, we need to focus on providing a balance between urban and suburban living options that currently does not exist.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

No one is arguing that suburban-style living options shouldn't be available. People obviously want the option and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, the fact that tax dollars are being spent to encourage further sprawl, especially given the current financial woes facing cities, is not excusable without further investment in higher density developments where more tax dollars can be generated per square mile. I am not advocating a completely urban landscape across the entire City of Tulsa, but instead of perpetuating a failing system of sprawl, we need to focus on providing a balance between urban and suburban living options that currently does not exist.

No one would likely admit that they are only in favor of over crowded urban conditions and totally rural farming communities.  The attitude presented by some of the phrases would seem to indicate otherwise.  Then I have to do something sarcastic to keep the playing field a little less unbalanced.  I really do favor some denser development for those who want it. Why have a yard to maintain and all the other suburban stuff if you really don't want it?